UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justified?

[TITS KING]

UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto any majority decision. Do you think is it justified in the present era of democracy?.....
Do you think the change in this old days colonial style rule;the right to veto any majority decision by a single permanent member would bring the member nations more closer towards peace and prosperity?..........:glugglug::wave::hatsoff:

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

All sovereign nations should leave the UN. :hatsoff:

 

[georges]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

In all honesty, the UN is a useless organization.

 

[wingman00]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

They security council needs to be renewed!the permanent members are the ww2 victors. Its been 65 years!
what about Japan and Germany? they are the worlds 2nd and 4th largest economies! both countries are stable democracyes, and have been so for a long time.
what about Brazil with 200 million citizens? what about india? they got 1.1 billion citizens!

 

[bustybbwlover]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

the un is most definitely useless, but that's cuz no nation ever wanted to give it any balls. who wants a worldwide organization that can kick your ass or tell you 'no! that's a bad capatalist'?

 

[wingman00]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

the un is most definitely useless, but that's cuz no nation ever wanted to give it any balls. who wants a worldwide organization that can kick your ass or tell you 'no! that's a bad capatalist'?

It had balls in Korea.

 

[biomech]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

All sovereign nations should leave the UN. :hatsoff:

Agreed :thumbsup:

 

[wingman00]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

it does have some useful organizations through: WHO UNICEF IMO

 

[baneblade]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

history shows us again and again
how nature points out the folly of man

 

[calpoon]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

Many members on here prove just how futile the UN is because they represent the exact same values of thier nation's governments which are selfish little dictatorships like the United States and Venezula that believe they should have no restrictions from violating the soveriegn power of every other nation to thier exclusive benefit and that they should not be subject to the same treatment by anyone else or even be held accountable for thier actions.

...Which is really the entire reason why the UN was founded, to prevent that from happening. So what good does it do if the UN does not have any power to enforce thier decisions?

On the other hand, there are legitmate concerns that the UN does nothing to eleviate that problem and just focuses it into the arena where instead of one rogue state imposing it's will, there is a minority collective of the most powerful UN member nations that just imposes that same facist will onto the smaller and less powerful nations.

I guess the only solution would be to create the true global consensus and make the UN decisions entirely voluntary, as you say the power of soverign veto, in the hopes that the will of most nations to work together toward mutual gain will outnumber the few that wish to act without regard to others.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

They security council needs to be renewed!the permanent members are the ww2 victors. Its been 65 years!
what about Japan and Germany? they are the worlds 2nd and 4th largest economies! both countries are stable democracyes, and have been so for a long time.
what about Brazil with 200 million citizens? what about india? they got 1.1 billion citizens!

Germany and India maybe. I don't think Japan can be on a security force, as they cannot declare war.

The name security council makes me think of military, not population, anyway. That's why you have the five (sanctioned) nuclear-armed states on it.

 

[TITS KING]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

Germany and India maybe. I don't think Japan can be on a security force, as they cannot declare war.

The name security council makes me think of military, not population, anyway. That's why you have the five (sanctioned) nuclear-armed states on it.

Yeh! the five nuclear states are permanent members but here are also some non permanent members who serve for a term and then some other states come to take that membership. In fact those temporary members have no powers. If a resolution is passed by security council with majority votes, even then a single permanent member can make it null by using veto vote. This lavish power of veto is just an insult of the other more than 150 nations of the World because those non-permanent members are elected by the general votes from different nations.
The current situation which is prevailing since the creation of this institution is not reflecting the rule of a majority vote. To make this World a place of understanding and respecting each other such things need to be changed and the majority opinion has to be respected at this international forum. If I am living in a community and expect that all community members should respect me but I don't have to respect anyone. Is this correct?

Hoping a better World for our next generation at least if not for us....:hatsoff::hatsoff::hatsoff:

 

[georges]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

Yeh! the five nuclear states are permanent members but here are also some non permanent members who serve for a term and then some other states come to take that membership. In fact those temporary members have no powers. If a resolution is passed by security council with majority votes, even then a single permanent member can make it null by using veto vote. This lavish power of veto is just an insult of the other more than 150 nations of the World because those non-permanent members are elected by the general votes from different nations.
The current situation which is prevailing since the creation of this institution is not reflecting the rule of a majority vote. To make this World a place of understanding and respecting each other such things need to be changed and the majority opinion has to be respected at this international forum. If I am living in a community and expect that all community members should respect me but I don't have to respect anyone. Is this correct?

Hoping a better World for our next generation at least if not for us....:hatsoff::hatsoff::hatsoff:

The veto has always existed. Some countries were the founders of the UN and the members that had deliberated some crucials and vital decisions most of the time, that is why they have the veto power.

 

[TITS KING]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

All sovereign nations should leave the UN. :hatsoff:

In all honesty, the UN is a useless organization.

Thanks my friends I appreciate your opinion.........:thumbsup::thumbsup::bowdown:

 

[bustybbwlover]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

It had balls in Korea.

i suppose what i was saying was: the un's ball depend to much on the nations in it, not so much upon it's own set and thus it's fairly useless as an independent body

 

[Member2019]

The UN is not a legislative body ... let alone the security council is not a toy ...

The UN is not a legislative body. It is not a representative form of government, much less representative per capita, actual number of citizens or any other metrics.

It is an avenue, nothing more. That includes the security council.

Remember that the permanent members of the security council also provide most of the manpower. It is not a toy to be utilized as 150 nations, each with equal voting rights, see fit.

As an American, I do not want nations who don't understand the strict separation of powers between state and federal, let alone nations that do not have the US' strict "civilians always, and I mean always, order the miltiary" attitude, involving themselves with the US military. No military should ever tell a nation how to run a nation, and no world organization should ever tell a federal nation how to run itself any more than a federal authority over a state.

I know that's a foreign set of concepts outside the US, but it has worked wonders for protecting individual rights in the US over several centuries. It's too bad most nations don't have the free press like we do that exposes its own nation when it does not. I absolutely love the fact that we Americans disagree, continually, with ourselves. There's nothing more dangerous than when nearly all Americans agree on something.

Hell, wasn't Firefly a sci-fi show set on this theme? That unification is not the best idea, because ideals will vary and the only way to ensure they will be heard is for higher authorities to defer all authority not explicitly granted to its lower forms of government?

 

[calpoon]

Re: The UN is not a legislative body ... let alone the security council is not a toy

ideals will vary and the only way to ensure they will be heard is for higher authorities to defer all authority not explicitly granted to its lower forms of government?

Sounds great. Too bad that isn't how it works in the United States.

The civilians control the military you say? oh so that must be why we have a popular election to decide when to go to war, eh?

To take the example of the office of president, his he is kind of elected by the will of the population, would you say that all of his decisions are controlled by the will of the population? that would be a pretty far reacthing grasp, if you ask me.

As you know we elect some people to hopefully represent our will when they cast thier votes for the president that then gets to make up his own mind on the choices we wants to make and we can hope that he considers the publics viewpoints (which we probably won't for the ones that didn't vote for him) or at least does what he thinks is best for the majority. And if we don't like what he does, we really can't do anything about it except wait another 4 years and vote for someone else to change it.

Our rational for government is supposed to be semi-autonomous states that are in a confederacy governed by an seperate and impartial entity to ensure that they can all function together without denying each others rights or stepping on each others toes, so to speak. It only makes sense to me from that POV that we have should apply the same formation to contries of a world confederation represented by the UN.

But then again I'm an anarchist that believes that the onyl stable society is one that operates on a tribal level and that any state, le talone nation of millions, is too large to contain the conflicts of it's own opposing wills and is inherantly alienated in it's relationship between government and population.

 

[calpoon]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

sorry about some of the spelling and grammer errors there. I was pressed for time in the edit limit.

 

[TITS KING]

Re: The UN is not a legislative body ... let alone the security council is not a toy

The UN is not a legislative body. It is not a representative form of government, much less representative per capita, actual number of citizens or any other metrics.

It is an avenue, nothing more. That includes the security council.

Remember that the permanent members of the security council also provide most of the manpower. It is not a toy to be utilized as 150 nations, each with equal voting rights, see fit.

As an American, I do not want nations who don't understand the strict separation of powers between state and federal, let alone nations that do not have the US' strict "civilians always, and I mean always, order the miltiary" attitude, involving themselves with the US military. No military should ever tell a nation how to run a nation, and no world organization should ever tell a federal nation how to run itself any more than a federal authority over a state.

I know that's a foreign set of concepts outside the US, but it has worked wonders for protecting individual rights in the US over several centuries. It's too bad most nations don't have the free press like we do that exposes its own nation when it does not. I absolutely love the fact that we Americans disagree, continually, with ourselves. There's nothing more dangerous than when nearly all Americans agree on something.

Hell, wasn't Firefly a sci-fi show set on this theme? That unification is not the best idea, because ideals will vary and the only way to ensure they will be heard is for higher authorities to defer all authority not explicitly granted to its lower forms of government?

This statement.......in the above post......

"It is not a toy to be utilized as 150 nations, each with equal voting rights, see fit"

Oh........my dear friend this is a statement representing the typical colonial era of the 17th/18th century; not 21th century.

My friend 150 nations are not kids needing toy...rather these are the self declared veto power few nations, who are using this international organization as a crippled toy for their own wishes.

Also the per capita and populations... there are countries who has populations....over billion and some less and strong economies.... but what is their role..........those are also kids and should stay away from this super toy..........??
As for as the man power supply is concerned ...the reason is that these few nations have full pledge control on this "toy" and they share the manpower supply because these kids don't wanna share their "toy" with other kids......:1orglaugh

Someone in this thread above had genuinely declared " All sovereign nations should quit it"

 

[Member2019]

Huh?

This statement.......in the above post......
"It is not a toy to be utilized as 150 nations, each with equal voting rights, see fit"
Oh........my dear friend this is a statement representing the typical colonial era of the 17th/18th century; not 21th century.

So what you're saying is that the US and its 300M citizens shouldn't have any more voting rights and control than, say, any nation with only 3-30M? Let alone after you add in dozens of "Johnny come lately" nations that have dozens of more say than the US, what's the point?

It's this type of bullshit that is why countries are independent and have multiple-levels of legislative form. Otherwise the US would be destroyed overnight by such bullshit, just like other countries that quickly self-destruct when they apply (and do regularly apply) the same logic to themselves.

I don't know how the logic of my point could have escaped you.

I know everyone likes to call the US Imperialist, but the US actually wishes people to be literate, educated, democratic and -- gasp -- pays "fair market value" for resources. That's a huge difference between the US and past, Imperialist nations. Heck, a few EU nations still have "cronies" who they don't have to pay "fair market value" for, while the US paid full price on gas in Iraq, even though local citizens in Iraq paid far less.

That's how far the US goes in comparison.